I am sorry, but as an ordinary Chinese citizen, I really cannot agree that days when Zhao Ziyang was in power were "better days". I prefer today's China, in spite of its numerous problems. The 1980s might be better days for the whole bunch of good-for-nothing "liberal" intellectuals such as Liu Xiaobo and yes, that ultimate bastard Ai Weiei.

The western media must send more capable and knowledgeable journalist to cover such an important event as the Chinese Communist Party Congress. They are making a fool of themselves by writing so poor articles. These articles show the limit of their understanding. Is spending 6 billion dollars for an election in the US more meaningful than choosing the next Chinese President by the Congress?

If the think tank of Zhao Ziyang really assumed that the "democracy within the party" could progress like how they devised, then I can't help sigh about their naviete.

The incident just reminded me of the failed "Hundred Days Reform" in 1898.

When Deng XiaoPing, the architect of the reform, couldn't resist peer group pressure from the other seven patriarchs and sacked Hu YaoBang in 1987, how could Zhao singlehandedly proceed the reform in a more rapid (relatively) pace?

If Zhao or his think tank could wait -- political reform might have already started. And of course, if Zhao could stay in the job of premier, there might not be hyperinflation at the end of 1988 which partially led to the outbreak of Tiananmen Incident since Zhao was more capable to handle the economy.

Please, give the rhetoric a rest Economist. President Obama and Mitt Romney spent over $1 billion dollars in their campaigns and even state legislative candidates spends in the millions. The money and the political party is the way the U.S. system "weeds" out the common man and make it a two horse race. Politics will always be a small group game.

What's the problem with professionalism? Do one have to be funny to be a leader now? Remember Mitt Romney's singing? He was America's second choice this year, he's funny...

The western journalists are disappointed because they cannot find among the Chinese leaders someone who feeds on underaged girls like Berlusconi or someone who acts more like a clown than a president like Sarkozy or murderers and butchers like Bush and Blair.

Let's assume that I agree with you that Bush and various American officials were butchers. Would you agree with me that Mao was a butcher as well? What if I tell you I would have no problem with the Justice Department prosecuting Bush? What if I tell you I don't mind if people label Bush as a war criminal? Would you be willing to state that Mao was a butcher, a war criminal who should have been prosecuted?

I certainly didn't support the Iraq war and the leaders who have are no longer in power and I certainly don't support the occupation of Palestine. I'm a Canadian and the Canadians did not send troops to Iraq.

Also "Uncle Sam" is not responsible for the news, journalists are, and everything you've posted has been discussed in the western media at length.

Bush was elected and Mao not. All Americans who elected Bush should take responsibility for his Butchering in Iraq and Afganistan. Mao was a dictator-like leader which he did not butchered but people died because of his mismanagement and political campaign, a extreme serious mistake which I cannot forgive him.

To prosecute a American president in front of Den Haag is almost impossible, forget it. Some one in CIA took the blame already---mis-informed by CIA information. (But those information was exactly what he wanted..)

Your logic is not only convenient but flawed. What I don't hear is your chant to remove Mao's portrait from Tiananmen Square. All the Chinese participants in forum don't criticize the Chinese government (like every government, Chinese government deserves criticisms as well). All they do is point to Bush. As an American, I do think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be prosecuted. But where are the Chinese outrage against Mao in this forum?

I don't disagree with the fact that the news media in U.S. and some American voters have a negative bias towards China (like all places, some of them are ignorant. When you talk to them about Chinese Dynasties, they think you are talking about local restaurants). However, the truth is the truth. I will not defend the U.S. when the government makes a mistake. You will always get attack dogs in these forums who just want to attack or defend (even a defensible topic like Mao) regardless of the truth. Most Chinese participants I have dealt with (with one exception) have defended CCP without rationality or reasons. Their favorite defense is a good offense. When I criticized CCP, their answer is Bush. When I criticized Mao, their answer is Bush. These are the nationalistic games that the Japanese played more than 60 years ago in which China was its biggest victim. It is not only boring but extremely unproductive.
The Economist forum should not be a battle of turfs. Rather, it should be an honest forum for exchanging ideas. No one can deny the fact that CCP has done an excellent job on improving the economic welfare of the Chinese citizens. However, CCP scores poorly in other categories (China’s justice System, economic equality, social equality and CCP’s treatment of other Chinese minorities). What is truly tiresome is when these areas are discussed in this particular forum, the Chinese would jump in and try to stop any meaningful discussions. The bottom line is if they are just interested in waving their flags, they should just hang out in Tiananmen Square and accept CCP's propaganda "as is" and leave the rest of us alone with our discussions. I do suspect, however, that many of them are on the payroll of CCP.

I certainly didn't support the Iraq war and the leaders who have are no longer in power and I certainly don't support the occupation of Palestine. I'm a Canadian and the Canadians did not send troops to Iraq. ]

A Canadian? Do you then support the occupation of Canada?

[Also "Uncle Sam" is not responsible for the news, journalists are, and everything you've posted has been discussed in the western media at length.]

but even jornalist could not fils the entry and exit and the press conferences after tianamen, it was public in chinese TV, they could just commented on theses picures, there is not much differences i think. A bounus is of course a international press conference but ...

Thank you for this article. In 1987 when the 13th Party Congress was held in Beijing and when Zhao Ziyang made the rounds among journalists that you mentioned at the top of the story, I was a first year graduate student of journalism in Beijing, and I still could remember clearly our American professor's (he was a Fulbright professor sent to teach us how to write news in English) response to that press conference. It was very much an eye-opener for all of us too. Zhao was human, personal, humorous, and answered all the questions posed by the press in a way that was honest and straightforward. (Now Chinese leaders gave the same answers to whatever questions you posed, or they could just quote an ancient Chinese poem, as Wen did all the time, as a kind of show-off.) Taking a look back at China in the past 25 years, I still believe that China was at its best in the 1980s, before what happened in Tiananmen Square in the summer of 1989. People see a fastly progessing China. People who were still very poor saw hopes and have great expectations for their country and for themselves. Nowadays, some people are filthily rich, but many, many people are not looking at their country with a positive eye. The past decade - in particularly the past decade under Hu and Wen - has indeed been a lost generation for this country. A very few people at the top, plus their rich relatives who control major part of Chinese economy, are denying the people's basic human rights - their rights to elect their own leaders, their rights to see competitive politics, and their rights to greater prosperity. Chinese political system, as seen from the operations of the 18th Party's Congress, does not look any different from that in North Korea in terms of its lack of transparency, the extreme top-down approach, and its secrecy. (And there are so many willing journalists who were born in the 1980s and 1990s that are full of praise of what is happening in the Great Hall of People.) I am not sure what specifically will generate political changes in China. I do not understand fully the motivations of what is happening in Burma, but I do see that as a peaceful, less bloody way of transformation that is very much needed in China. But where are the people at the top who has the courage to do this? For close to 70 years, the Communist Party has killed every single sign of dissent in the country, and there will be no meaningful opposition in the country for a long time to come. The Communist Party, by denying people's rights to dissent, is very source of instability in the country, but the party is spending more than the budget of national defense to "safeguard stability", believing everybody on the street could cause instability. Come on, no political party in the world has survived more than 70 years in power. The only solution is for the party to reform from its within, now. The other scenario will be total disaster, and if that happens, it will be the people like you and me who will suffer.

During 2000 years of feudal system, you kind never bothered thinking of changing system.

Why? Because people like you were on top tier of the society, you kind always looked others from above, even emperors had to take advice from you kind.

Now, after 30 years of 10% growth, after 500,000,000 people were urbanized, this government is one from hell according to you kind? This should clearly prove what you really care: your social status. The problems in China now are used by you kind to get what you want, ordinary people's wellbeings is never what you care.

check the budget and you will not see any 'safeguard stability' expenses.
Rather, it's called budget for public scurity, which included the budgets for law and justice departments, budget for disaster relief, epidemic control,food and drug quality control...it's a mess, but more due to inefficient bureaucrats than to authoritarian crack down on dissent

You will understand what western democracy is about, for example, you may have a clue why CEO pay less tax rate than their secretary; the rich spent 4 billion dollars on lobbying ( does anyone know lobbying is constitutional right?); How bought politicians blocked policy that big corps don't like.

Then imagine how China would be like if government is controlled by bought politicians.

I think the current American system is pretty bad and sad and should be changed. The margin income tax rate in 1950s was around 90% and now, it is around 15% for those who make money with capitals.

However, democracy moves in circle and cycles. You will have the periods of excesses and rubber barons and periods of more equality and prosperity for all. U.S. is currently in transition. Hopefully we can move back to a period of more equality and prosperity soon.

Hopefully we can move back to a period of more equality and prosperity soon.

***********************************

For US to recover, "free" media must be suppressed. The following is something I wrote before:

In case people don't know how "free" media paralyzes their governments, let me give an example.

Suppose government plans a project that would benefit hundreds of thousands of people. The project needs little sacrifices from 1000 families.

Assume you are one of the families and assume you are willing to sacrifice a little for the good of the community.

Among 1000 families, 990 are willing to sacrifice a little, including your family, 9 families will wait and are willing to sacrifice if every family is willing to.

The last family refuses to sacrifice for whatever reason. If this family refuses, the 9 families will refuse too, this would lead to 100 families refusals. In this case, are you still willing to ? Therefore, one single family can block the whole project that would benefit hundreds of thousands people, and according to "free" media, it is his "human right" and he is free to ignore his obligation to society without being ridiculed.

Why does this family dare to do so? because "free" media is on his side. If government dares to do anything to him, government will be described by "free" media as "inhuman", and god knows how "free" media will sensationalize the issue.

Then government fails to carry out plan, what would f123ing "free" media say? they bash government for failure, which inevitably destroys government's credit.

Do you think under such situation, government will be able to make long term plans? No way!!! What is the future of country without long term plans ? keep going south.

Here is another example of how "free" media messed up their countries :

We know there have been widespread debt issues in "free" world, almost all of them are because of unreasonable demands from unions and parasites.

Are vast majority people in "free" world unreasonable? obviously. But here is the situation :

1000 people, 990 of them are reasonable people with reasonable demands, 9 of them are greed want more, but don't want to be the first one tagged as bad apple in a bunch. The last one is very greedy, demand unreasonable money.

With one standing out, the 9 will demand lot more too. What about 990? is it fair for them to keep quiet? No, so 90 of them join in and demand a lot more, and finally all 1000 become unreasonable.

So here who gives the right to the first one to demand unreasonable amount money?

Answer : "free" media, they claim that it is "human right" for anyone to demand any amount of benefits or compensation they want, no matter how unreasonable the demand.

Put aside your dislike about CPC and the system, read very carefully the post above by Nan66, you can see all his post is about "what I like, what I believe, what I care".

How could China be better in an era when 97% of people had no flush toilet? It is obvious that only thing he cares is politics.

Now image people like him control information, you will see a society in which politics dominates everything, economy becomes an afterthought. How will it be like ? culture revolution? Thailand? Gridlock in US? It is a disaster for 99% of the people. The only thing a government officer cares in such situation is not making mistake (except corruption), and there is only one way not making mistakes : don't do anything.

Old Chinese wisdom : don't believe those who always say what you love to hear.

China should adopt the US System of a "guided democracy". Let the people vote and let the media the illusion of freedom and plurality (several parties with big differences in words alone and minimal differences in actions), but never lose the control about the media and the financial sector. Hold them indirectly through private cronies and agents.

Guided democracy, also called managed democracy[1], is a term for a democratic government with increased autocracy. Governments are legitimated by elections that are while and fair but used by the government to continue their same policies and goals.[2]

In other words, the government has learned to control elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basic democratic principles, there can be minor deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state's continuous use of public relations techniques.[3]

There is no real democracy. Neither in China, the US or my country. My government is a guided democracy. There are many strong groups, who can force the government to ignore the public fortune, if it is necessary. However I judge a system over his results. And at the very moment the US and German guided democratic system delivers wealth, social welfare and more liberal rights (even when it doesn't change anything in the very end).

If the Chinese system works for its country, I won't complain. But you should remember that every wealthier population one day will cry for political rights. If the Chinese government wasn't smart enough to install mighty private media groups and big player banks through their secret agencies like in West till the transition, it would be swept away and a mob would took control over China. The Western elites are not dumb as you believe.

I don't know exactly what you mean about "guided democracy". you just made me believe the US system is deceptious and tortuous. Another word, the system seems good but in fact not so democratic as the US government advocated.

If the Chinese government wasn't smart enough to install mighty private media groups...
----------------------------------------------------
Magazines like Southern Weekly are owned by the government but controlled exclusively by liberals. They've been active for some time and are quite influential. Sometimes I feel they were too suggestive for truth's sake.

I don't know exactly what you mean about "guided democracy". you just made me believe the US system is deceptious and tortuous. Another word, the system seems good but in fact not so democratic as the US government advocated.
---------------

Thanks a lot for TE magazine reporters, who put in plain words to us non-native speakers what the definition of bias or prejudice is by the first two discourses from this very side with the one being on 18th Congress, the other being Barak Obama of the US president-re-election. The third one is from Washington Post covering the some event in China as TE did. .

THE ‘wooden choreography’ of the Chinese Communist Party’s 18th congress, now under way in Beijing, strikes Chinese and foreign observers alike as an ‘oddity’ in a country that in many other ways is changing so fast. The ritual of the week-long event, from the ‘stodgy’ report delivered by the general secretary on opening day (see our report, here) to the ‘mind-numbing’ repetition of ‘identical views’ by the more than 2,200 delegates, has’ hardly ‘changed in decades.

Barack Obama's second term
Now, hug a Republican
A budget deal makes sense for the re-elected president, his opponents, his country and the world
Nov 10th 2012 | from the print edition
LET him ‘savour’, for a day or two, a victory that many had said could not happen. No president since FDR had been re-elected with unemployment so high. The country seemed ‘pessimistic’ and ‘bitterly’ divided, on racial grounds even more than on economic ones. His best-known achievement, health-care reform, had turned out to be ‘deeply unpopular.’ The Republicans spent $800m trying to ‘remove’ him. Yet on November 6th Barack Obama carried all the states he won four years ago, bar only Indiana and North Carolina, for a solid victory over Mitt Romney of 332 electoral-college votes to 206; the Democrats tightened their grip on a Senate they had once been expected to lose; and the president gave his best speech for several years.

PECIAL REPORT
TRANSITION IN CHINA

China’s Communist leadership set for change

BEIJING — China’s once-a-decade leadership transition began Thursday with all the ‘pageantry,’ ‘security and ‘behind-the-scenes political intrigue’ befitting the secretive Communist Party’s most sensitive event.

The usually crowded Tiananmen Square had been cleared, giving it an ‘eerie, post-apocalyptic ‘feel. Activists had been ‘chased out of the capital,’ and buildings across the city were draped in flags, flowers and signs, all colored communist red.

But beneath the pomp of the 18th party congress, estimated to last one week, are deep implications for the U.S.-China relationship and the world.

Thanks again for such instructive teaching materials, dear TE journalists.

I normally find Analect to be pretty insightful but this one doesn't "get it".

The Chinese leaders are boring because they are suppose to be. After Mao and Deng, decisions were made to shift away from one man rule towards rule by consensus. Leaders are stoic and follow a set script so that none may stand out above the rest based on charisma. This is directly to avoid another Mao from leading the country down a dark path with cult of personality.

Bo, intentionally or not, clearly did not get the memo. He thought he could play the Mao card to weasel into the Politburo. The collective responded and now he is for some permanent vacation at Chengqing prison.

I agree, congress isnt what it used to be. In the old days they actually worked with each other to pass legislation for the sake of their people... Oooh you were talking about the Chinese one. I suppose they are as effective as each other nowadays.

but the question still remains that why
Zhao Ziyang didn't feel triumphant when he took the party secretary job from Hu YaoBang whom was sacked from not tackling "anti-bourgeois liberalization" seriously enough in 1987.
thanks xxox

I'd like to point out that the State of Union address is relentlessly boring and intelligence-crippling too. The robot-like applause of the congressmen are reminder of the borg collective. To me, i can't help feeling like watching a cult gathering.

maybe that's this is all about, a party gathering is just a cult ritual.

as for the competitive election, i'd say Americans can only elect Coca-cola from Pepsi-cola. Even Tea-party is not for real a possibility. Do you really call it competitive election? The choice is just a hallucination.